h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

The problem with the Daily Mail is the way that it desperately clings on to the myth of Britain being or once being a great nation. which means that alot of its articles (especially the historical ones) which might have been interesting get bogged down in patriotism and how all these 'ethnic minorities' supposedly 'invading' Britain, are supposedly destroying our culture.

Also getting back to Micheal Moore, why to Americans have such a thing against being liberal or ecological or being nice to other nations or cultures. Also when/if the Vietnam war is taught in schools how are the anti-war protesters potrayed as heros or villains?

Liberal's a dirty word since the 80's and as far as I can see it, it's because the Republicans seem to claim some hold over what's good for the economy and tell it in a fashion where "if you want higher minimum wage, there'll be less jobs." Which means Populism has been stripped from what Liberals are known for, since it implies we're all anti-work. 'course, that's just my opinion.

And the Vietnam is the very very last thing we ever learn in American history, and it's given the once over lightly. (by that time, we're all waiting for the school year to end and all attempts to teach are impossible) The textbooks give about a paragraph to the entire engagement, while giving several pages to, say, the war of 1812.

"Also when/if the Vietnam war is taught in schools how are the anti-war protesters potrayed as heros or villains?"


"Teaching" and "American schools". Interesting notions you have there....

aye, that is why the Mail irks me. But not as much as the folk who believe it... and the 'Xpress has that misconception too, buried in the mounds of fluff and moaning about celebrity divorces.

I asked this before somewhere else, but didnt' get much of an answer; why is there such a hostile attitude to multiculturalism in the US?
amongst the gushy emails after 11/9 were many stating that 'We aren't multicultural. We have an American culture', basically saying, if you aren't prepared to ditch your language, customs and culture in favour of one we deem proper, you may's well stay Foreign. (The best one, however- unintentionally- was som't like 'we have the American way. We have our own language, English...' )

"I asked this before somewhere else, but didnt' get much of an answer; why is there such a hostile attitude to multiculturalism in the US?"


For all the hostile attitude that US governments express to "uncooperative" countries, my own impressions of the US is that it is very tolerant of other cultures. I would therefore argue against a statement that the US is internally hostile to other cultures.

My statement is based on comparing the attitudes in other countries (I've personally experienced), and I can tell you that the US (internally) is far more tolerant then Australia, Japan, Germany, France, actually most of Europe. But again, it's my personal perception.

And just what makes you say that the US is more 'tolerant' than Australia to people of other nationalities, not to mention any of the other countries you named...

Were there Muslims, Arabs, South Asians attacked in France post Sept 11th?

"And just what makes you say that the US is more 'tolerant' than Australia to people of other nationalities, not to mention any of the other countries you named..."


Did you read my post *fully*?

As I've said, it's based on my experiences. i.e. I lived in those countries (excpet France, which I just visited). And again, it's my personal experience.

Yes, but what experience makes you say that? Quite frankly, in my experience it's been much to the contrary.

"Yes, but what experience makes you say that? Quite frankly, in my experience it's been much to the contrary."

Of which country specifically?

Let's look at specifics. Japan: great country and friendly people. However foreigners are not allowed to own land. Foreigners are expected to comply with some local customs; which is fine because when in Rome..., but to *me* it indicates a lack of tolerance for other customs.

Germany: again great country, people not as friendly. Tolerance of other countries is greatly diminished when you see anti-foreigner slogans spray painted in various places.

My original post concerned Australia, primarily, and that's what I'm questioning.

"My original post concerned Australia, primarily, and that's what I'm questioning."


I've lived in Australia for many years and I back my opinion by my experience. To give you a recent example, I was whatching cricket on television recently (Australia V Sri Lanka) and the commentators (probably Bill and Tony) were making fun of the names of the Sri Lankan players. I don't have the exact dialogue, but it went something like "this guy has 50 letters in his last name. I could never pronounce that! He should think about changing it to something like John on Ken"

You can form your own opinion from the attitude reflected by such a statement.

And I've heard very similar comments on programming from the US, concerning people with non-anglicised names, comments such as "Perhaps he needs some money to buy a vowel or two".

I've lived in Australia for many years too. I'm not saying that Australia's a multicultural utopia, because it's not, but I've not seen any evidence that the United States are any more accepting of people from other cultures than some of those other countries you named are.

Sounds like we have a difference of opinion.

I thought it was odd, with the history of immigration the US has. However, it is the idea or word multiculturalism that seems to be the problem, rather than accepting other cultures; the idea that they need to become sufficiently American. As I say this is garnered from personal emails from emotional types, and proud statements of patriotism that were floating about post-11/9. But the statement 'we aren't multicultural; we have our own culture' is pretty repellent to me. Personally all I would rather happen upon immigrating/emigrating is folk learn the language to a sufficient degree, if possible, that they can get on okay (but that's a practical consideration based on what I would want to do.) and comply with the basic laws of that country. I wouldn't force a culture on them to stop them being so dam' foreign.

It is the sometimes unnecessary patriotism of the US that gets to me if anything. Yeah, fine, be proud of your country and grateful that you live there, but do we *really need to know about it*?

to be honest, the long-names thing strikes me as just a joke... ill-judged perhaps in the context of public commentary but it need not be grounded in racism, if the only object of the joke was the length and complexity of their names. However that's just how my sense of humour sees it; if it were a grand, traditional name like Ebernezer or Montmorency I would apply the same joke. (There's that Australian cricket commentators sketch somewhere on tape, with names like 'Ecutis Armoff and Sunil Avascar'.)

australia -

- perpetuating notions of terra nullus (the idea that australia was essentially devoid of human life when europeans first arrived, despite aboriginal cultures having lived there for at least 40,000 years)
- inability or refusal to acknowledge the stolen generations (aboriginal children were stolen from their families and forced into white schools)
- prime minister refuses to apologise to aboriginal peoples for these injustices.
- refusal to allow tampa refugees to land (the tampa was a norwegian boat that picked up afghani refugees from another sinking boat. the captain refused to leave austrailian waters)
- govt officials concocted the media story about tampa refugees throwing their babies over board, in order to increase support for the howard govt via anti-immigration sentiment.
- large increases in anti-immigration feeling in public opinion polls in the wake of the tampa refugees.

thats just off the top of my head. i don't know how it compares to the US but australia is definitely struggling over race issues.

"why is there such a hostile attitude to multiculturalism in the US? " or australia or nz or...

its white people being scared that they will lose power and control (which they probably will).

The US in particular. (it being the only nation that seems to need to chuck emails of that nature at me unsolicited.)

I would believe that definition; however I am white and am not afraid of losing power or control. Don't perceive that I have that much, in the wider sense. I live between three major centres of multiculturalism (multi-, not just duo-) and they are the better for it. However I must be out of step with the rest of the country- or at least I am told so by spokespeople who state that the rest of the country (what I'm in) don't think like me- 'cos I neither see an apocalyptic wave of immigrants swamping all beneath them, nor any of the problems they are supposed to cause.
I am ashamed *for* people who think that way, not by or because of them because I am not them. (Like being indifferent towards the British Empire. I wasn't there, I am not responsible.)
Remember all that mass fuss when some govt. fellow stated the people of Britain were 'a mongrel race'? It pains me to see people argue with the truth. We have been variously invaded, colonised and generally lived in by an array of cultures/races/civilisations, and for some residents to suddenly go all pure-blooded is a laughable facade.
There was one sickening letter in the Mail written by some smug, prissy old cow, bragging that on census forms etc. 'where 'English' is denigrated to 'other white' I cross it out and put 'Anglo-Saxon'.
that is shockingly ignorant, for one thing... the Anglo-Saxons are all dead! Gone! none left, and you are certainly not one of them! unless of course you were frozen in time and missed the Jutes, Vikings and Normans (you don't get any misplaced English pretending to be them, do you?). There is maybe more cause for claiming to be 'Celtic' (due to comparative isolation) but, in the sense of the widespread warrior culture with artistic leanings, they too are no more.
But what the f**k does it matter, since they all came from the same place anyway? if you're so damned proud to be Anglo-Saxon, perhaps recall that their original lands later gave birth to those Germans you think are such bastards. It's all Caucasian. And it really doesn't matter.

As for that list of Australian grievances,

- The American Indians also were treated as either "children of the forest" or "hostile savages," and if not that were told to "assimilate" while at the same time being told they could never really so do. They, too, were forced into reservations and their children put in boarding homes where their language and religion was forbidden. In fact, they were defined out of existence by the US parks board, not to mention their cavalry, where the Parks board *told* the Indians what their own culture entailed (and barred the rest) and the cavalry barred them from hunting/fishing/living on a subsistence non-market-economy lifestyle. In fact, practicing theire religions was still illegal until 1979. Bow, they're still the only ethnicity in the entire damned country where you need to prove your lineage back to the turn of the century or have a "tribal membership card" from one of the rezs - and a great deal of Americans don't even believe we Indians still exist, or that we're in a timewarp and need to be covered in deerskin to be legit.

And when the Americans got tired of doing this to the American Indians, they did it to the Irish, Italians, Jews, Blacks, Chinese, Hispanics, and most recently South Asians, Muslims and Arabs. There're also anti-immigrant organizations as well here, such as Project USA (just google it), which I find rather hypocritical since 99.7% of the population immigrated here in the last 250 years.

I was going to make mention of the American Indian issues, but you've done so more succinctly than I could have, thank you NYC Student.

As for the Tampa "Crisis", that was massively blown out of proportion by the media. The refugees weren't refused the opportunity to land in Australia, they were told that if they did land they would be taken to detention camps where their applications for asylum would be processed on a case-by-case basis. Many of these refugees, as was pointed out, are Afghani people. That in itself is not a problem. The problem is when these people a) Jump the queue of genuine asylum seekers, in the hope that they HAVE to be let in because they're on a boat instead of at a consulate somewhere and b) When people amongst them are known criminals who've destroyed their paperwork in an effort to avoid being detected by the authorities. Another problem is that many of these people come to Australia with little to no marketable skills, not to mention unable to speak the language. If they don't have family already here, how do they support themselves? Where does this magical money to feed them and house them and set them up come from?

They are just some of the issues that were overlooked by the media in the scramble to get a sensational story to sell to the world.

yes, but look at how the australian public responded to the situation (by becoming even more anti immigrant)

there is (or should be) a distinction between refugees and immigrants. immigrants are usually accepted on the basis of either financial wealth of marketable skills. refugees are usually accepted on humanitarian grounds (i.e. their life or wellbeing is in danger if they stay in their country of origin).

i agree that there the tampa situation was complex and that the media didn't handle it well.

however my understanding is that they were for quite a while refused entry into australia. the norwegian captain was told to take them somewhere else, and he refused. this stand off went on for a long time. those that were eventually let into australia were put in detention camps.

the point i was trying to make is the one of ethnicity. if it had been a boat load of white english refugees i'm damn sure the howard govt would have let them in and sorted the paperwork later.